The committee experiment failed

[dtgold88]

OOC games already don't matter. At least not much. The NCAA can take care of OOC schedules with a literal stroke of a pen and by making sure that all conferences are playing the same number of conference games (which imo, is the real problem with scheduling).

Additionally, I'd argue that certain OOC games are where you want to rest your starters and get some playing time for backups to help prepare them in case you need them later in the season.



And much of that can be eliminated by having each conference go to a 9 game IC schedule. Even if they went to every conference playing an 8 game schedule, the NCAA would just need to make a rule limiting the number of FCS games and not allowing them after a certain point in the season.



I agree with this 100%.

I loved it when the PAC, prior to expansion, went to a 9 game in conference schedule, so everyone played everyone else, every year. It hurt the conference as far as national rankings, etc. but I think it was the best way to determine a true conference champ.

I don't think that can happen again unless they shrink conferences (which I don't see happening), but each conference should definitely be playing the same number of conference games.

Agree it's time they make scheduling uniform. Preference would be 9 games in conference, 1 tough OOC P%, a lesser P5 (or well known tough G5) and maybe another G5 based on location (BIG could play MAC, for instance). ....if the SEC wants FCS week? fine. But not every year. No more than every other year.

But whatever they do, make all P5 teams follow.

 

[trojanfan12]

Several teams broke their streak of never playing FCS teams since the CFP started and pretty much everyone now does one. It's a travesty that needs to be stopped.

I forget which year it is, but USC has their first ever game vs. an FCS opponent on a future schedule.

I'm pissed about it (as are many others) and am hoping that changes before the game actually happens.

 

[NU_FTW]

OOC games already don't matter. At least not much. The NCAA can take care of OOC schedules with a literal stroke of a pen and by making sure that all conferences are playing the same number of conference games (which imo, is the real problem with scheduling).

OOC games do matter. In an automatic format you could lose all your OOC games and just go on to win all your conference games and be bid in.

Additionally, I'd argue that certain OOC games are where you want to rest your starters and get some playing time for backups to help prepare them in case you need them later in the season.

OOC games do matter. In an automatic format you could lose all your OOC games and just go on to win all your conference games and be bid in.

And much of that can be eliminated by having each conference go to a 9 game IC schedule. Even if they went to every conference playing an 8 game schedule, the NCAA would just need to make a rule limiting the number of FCS games and not allowing them after a certain point in the season.

It wont fix the problem though OOC games are throw away games that can be lost and still auto bid by winning the conference.

I agree with this 100%.

I loved it when the PAC, prior to expansion, went to a 9 game in conference schedule, so everyone played everyone else, every year. It hurt the conference as far as national rankings, etc. but I think it was the best way to determine a true conference champ.

i think the current issues should be fixed before trying to change the way the end of the year is rewared

I don't think that can happen again unless they shrink conferences (which I don't see happening), but each conference should definitely be playing the same number of conference games.

It could happen if all the major conferences got together (and probably tv networks) and there was incentive on both sides to do it it would work.

Either way standardized scheduling restraints/requirements would be a better step in the right direction, that way at the end of the year you dont have to complain about a committee because teams have at least played a similar schedule and year after year you can say they did good against their whole conference not their division plus 1 other team in the other divison or what have ya

 

[trojanfan12]

Several teams broke their streak of never playing FCS teams since the CFP started and pretty much everyone now does one. It's a travesty that needs to be stopped.

I forget which year it is, but USC has their first ever game vs. an FCS opponent on a future schedule.

I'm pissed about it (as are many others) and am hoping that changes before the game actually happens.

 

[NU_FTW]

My choice would be to limit it to 3 losses, but if they make it all CCG winners, so be it.

How does the NFL have participation trophies? Only trophy I know of anyone cares about is the Lombardi.

Nice try, but another fail.

There are plenty of teams who are happy to get to the playoffs....

No 3 loss team should be allowed in a national championship game ever.

There is no justification for them to be there, ever.

 

[dtgold88]

Being a conference champ is already quite significant as it is. Being a shitty conference champ shouldnt be rewarded.

You can disagree all you want but making it so that OOC games dont matter in the auto-bid process is just terrible and WILL result in teams resting their starters and not caring about a loss. It will make it so every game is not important.

Nobody likes FCS week in the SEC... now make that 3-4 games every conference doing it (at least the auto-bid ones) It is completely bogus to think that teams wont do it. The SEC does it because they know they can and still get in the CFP there is no incentive to change that.


Personally before anyone addresses the CFP's expansion way prior to that there needs to be a standardization of scheduling when it comes to how you schedule OOC and how often you have to play your cross divisional opponents. You shouldnt be able to go 5-9 years without playing a team from the other division. Id rather see 10 team Power conferences where everyone plays everyone. Get to that point see where we are then we can discuss expansion and automatic criteria. Until then you are not improving anything just watering down the problem.

Mentioned standardization in scheduling in previous post (agree 100%).

Issue with your conference comment is in many cases we don't know who are the best or worst some seasons. Many suspect SEC is still the best, but I'm not so sure BIG is not on their level now. Even when it seemed they weren't there were many years the BIG held their own facing SEC teams in bowl games.

Just not enough interconference games to be sure. Unlike what many fans of the SEC want to believe (I get this isn't you) conference strength cannot be gauged when teams play each other.

 

[dtgold88]

First, why do you keep obsessing on BYU? I couldn't care less what happens to them, or any other mid major. The point was it was controversial and discussed for many years after the fact that they were paper champions. Awarded a title having not played a single ranked team the whole year. Including playing an unranked Michigan in their bowl. That was a problem.

I said I understood and accepted the momentum for creating the BCS.

There is no way that either of the reasons for the BCS can happen under our current system. Isn't that obvious? Impossible for the top teams to win it without facing two ranked teams now at the end. So people can bitch all they want about weak schedules getting them in, but they still have to earn it. And we have a unified title. Doesn't matter if any of us wish the format was different. We have a clear champion.

Why are we going round and round on these?

Only area we disagree is you are completely opposed to expansion. I prefer 8 (but am OK if it stays where it is....just want more set rules).

 

[dtgold88]

Several teams broke their streak of never playing FCS teams since the CFP started and pretty much everyone now does one. It's a travesty that needs to be stopped.

I prefer no FCS but breaking their string for 1 game is such a travesty? Not that I agree "several" teams did this. What about tougher scheduling such as UF leaving their state and them and Bama actually scheduling teams in the opponents' home stadium?

 

[NU_FTW]

Mentioned standardization in scheduling in previous post (agree 100%).

Issue with your conference comment is in many cases we don't know who are the best or worst some seasons. Many suspect SEC is still the best, but I'm not so sure BIG is not on their level now. Even when it seemed they weren't there were many years the BIG held their own facing SEC teams in bowl games.

Just not enough interconference games to be sure. Unlike what many fans of the SEC want to believe (I get this isn't you) conference strength cannot be gauged when teams play each other.

I would be for fixing this issue before discussing expansion. Teams dont play cross divisional teams often enough. There is no standardization for OOC opponents FCS/P5/G5 whatever just make it standardized, and also there is no standardization of when OOC games are played. Make those things standardized across the board (at least in the p5) and see how that works out. It will be a lot easier to compare teams and conferences that way.

I would be 100% for rotating OOC P5 requirements so each conference pairs up and rotates yearly that too would be a better benchmark. Eliminate all G5 and FCS teams from P5 OOC make the (the G5 could do the same then it would help determine what is better with those too instead of each team trying to play the worst of each conference make it more a H2H ooc conference vs conference style

 

[dtgold88]

I forget which year it is, but USC has their first ever game vs. an FCS opponent on a future schedule.

I'm pissed about it (as are many others) and am hoping that changes before the game actually happens.

We did a couple, as well. One a while back against YSU (favor to Tressel) and another because someone dropped us off their schedule (don't recall who). Didn't like it, but once in a blue moon not so terrible.

Every year like most SEC teams? Different story.

 

[dtgold88]

There are plenty of teams who are happy to get to the playoffs....

No 3 loss team should be allowed in a national championship game ever.

There is no justification for them to be there, ever.

What team said happy to be there and goal not a title? And if they did, what trophy did they receive as their participation trophy?

 

[NU_FTW]

What team said happy to be there and goal not a title? And if they did, what trophy did they receive as their participation trophy?

Often it is the barometer used to decide whether or not to retain the head coach...

 

[dtgold88]

I would be for fixing this issue before discussing expansion. Teams dont play cross divisional teams often enough. There is no standardization for OOC opponents FCS/P5/G5 whatever just make it standardized, and also there is no standardization of when OOC games are played. Make those things standardized across the board (at least in the p5) and see how that works out. It will be a lot easier to compare teams and conferences that way.

I would be 100% for rotating OOC P5 requirements so each conference pairs up and rotates yearly that too would be a better benchmark. Eliminate all G5 and FCS teams from P5 OOC make the (the G5 could do the same then it would help determine what is better with those too instead of each team trying to play the worst of each conference make it more a H2H ooc conference vs conference style

Love the last idea. Not too long ago there were plans for a BIG/PAC challenge (like BIG/ACC in basketball). Don't remember why but it fell through.

 

[trojanfan12]

It wont fix the problem though OOC games are throw away games that can be lost and still auto bid by winning the conference.

How many times has a conference champion lost all of it's OOC games?

My guess would be never.

Also, as I pointed out and so did dtgold, the NCAA can make rules re: scheduling of OOC games that can be scheduled against FCS or low level G5 competition.

9 game schgedule, OOC consisting of 1 P5, 1 respectable G5 or lower level P5 and 1 FCS or lower level G5.

i think the current issues should be fixed before trying to change the way the end of the year is rewared

Agree with this. Fix the scheduling first, then see where we are at re: playoff expansion.

 

[NU_FTW]

Love the last idea. Not too long ago there were plans for a BIG/PAC challenge (like BIG/ACC in basketball). Don't remember why but it fell through.

Football games are physical if they cant work out for home games to be filled properly they have to go to additional games and then you get all the injury nuts worried about that.

there is a way to do it but someone is never happy

 

[dtgold88]

Often it is the barometer used to decide whether or not to retain the head coach...

so? CFB teams keep or drop coaches because they play or miss out on bowls. UM or OSU coaches keep/lose jobs over records against each school.

The participation trophy comment was just off base....unless you realize based on your "logic" many are handed out in CFB as well. In fact, far more. You get one for winning a conference or a bowl.

 

[NU_FTW]

How many times has a conference champion lost all of it's OOC games?

My guess would be never.

Also, as I pointed out and so did dtgold, the NCAA can make rules re: scheduling of OOC games that can be scheduled against FCS or low level G5 competition.

9 game schgedule, OOC consisting of 1 P5, 1 respectable G5 or lower level P5 and 1 FCS or lower level G5.



Agree with this. Fix the scheduling first, then see where we are at re: playoff expansion.

As it stands right now OOC games matter. So i am not aware of any team off the top of my head. You can be sure though the games will not matter there will be 3rd stringers playing and the games will mean less should there be an automatic bidding process.

Comparing what we have now to what an auto bid situation would look like is apples to oranges and not a valid argument.

The facts remain if all you need to do is win your conference then it is a fact that OOC games do not matter and teams can afford to lose 1, 2,3 all of them and it wont hurt their chances of winning their conference. if you set the threshold at no 4 loss teams then said team only needs to win 1 OOC game and the rest of their conference. Now depending how strategic teams get in scheduling their OOC it can make the end of the season really really really boring

 

[NU_FTW]

so? CFB teams keep or drop coaches because they play or miss out on bowls. UM or OSU coaches keep/lose jobs over records against each school.

The participation trophy comment was just off base....unless you realize based on your "logic" many are handed out in CFB as well. In fact, far more. You get one for winning a conference or a bowl.

Nobody denied that bowls are a participation trophy, but as it stands the CFP isnt, unlike the NFL playoff that was the argument you are trying to forget and twist....

 

[dtgold88]

Nobody denied that bowls are a participation trophy, but as it stands the CFP isnt, unlike the NFL playoff that was the argument you are trying to forget and twist....

Try and stay focused. I've always said you can pick the rules here, but pick them and stick to them.

First it was about all the participation trophies in the NFL. The funny thing is there are far more trophies handed out in CFB.

Then it's "oh, but NFL teams are happy just getting to playoffs"

I asked who says that, then it's "well, coaches are hired or fired based on the playoffs"

And back again to the above comment by you. who gets trophies in the NFL anyone cares about other than the Lombardi? And how would a participation trophy be added in CFB if the CFP went to 8 teams?

Look, you made a foolish comment about participation trophies in the NFL. Own it and move on.

 

[NU_FTW]

Try and stay focused. I've always said you can pick the rules here, but pick them and stick to them.

First it was about all the participation trophies in the NFL. The funny thing is there are far more trophies handed out in CFB.

Then it's "oh, but NFL teams are happy just getting to playoffs"

I asked who says that, then it's "well, coaches are hired or fired based on the playoffs"

And back again to the above comment by you. who gets trophies in the NFL anyone cares about other than the Lombardi? And how would a participation trophy be added in CFB if the CFP went to 8 teams?

Look, you made a foolish comment about participation trophies in the NFL. Own it and move on.

How about you try and stay focused. We were talking about how the 8 team playoff would just give out participation trophies, like the NFL does. That was where we were then you tried to change it to the bowls we currently have which nobody denies or cares because the bowls do not have anything to do with the CFP (except the ones that are used for the semifinals but the criteria to get in is much different)

You are really bad about actually taking things in black and white and reading them for what they are. Stop reading into anything that isnt written. The words i chose are the words i wrote and the words i meant.

Get back to that conversation and we can continue otherwise you are just spinning, making up lies, and avoiding the actual conversation.